Monday, November 26, 2012

As the pundits and partisans hand-wring about what will happen if the United States falls off of the so-called fiscal cliff, I am coming around to this position.
I am down with going over the fiscal cliff.
Now I am not at this decision lightly.
Without a doubt, the Republicans will be blamed if this does indeed occur. And even if a known to be horrible compromise is somehow hatched-up, Republicans who accede to Democrat demands will not be given a free ride.
Ask then-President George H. W. Bush when he collapsed under Democrat pressure and broke the no-new taxes pledge. Did he get credit for "being an adult" or any of the other Washington Beltway euphemisms? Noooo! He got hammered for raising taxes by none other than William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. in the 1992 presidential campaign. Yeah, a lot of good it did Mr. Bush who lost reelection that year.
That is what will happen to any Republican that continues to entertain giving any quarter to the Democrat demands, which will lead to tax hikes.
So, what will happen if no deal is reached and then we go over the fiscal cliff?
The immediate that happens as of January 1, 2013 will be what is called sequestration. It essentially will be a combination of budget cuts and tax hikes.Now, I link Marc Thiessen (too bad he does not spell Mark correctly!) because it is a useful guide to exactly what happens.
And here are the tax highlights Mr. Thiessen alludes to:

●The employee share of the Social Security payroll tax would rise from 4.2
percent to 6.2 percent. ●An estimated 33 million taxpayers — many in high-tax blue
states — would be required to pay the alternative minimum tax, up from 4 million
who owed it in 2011. ●The child tax credit would be cut in half, from $1,000 today to $500, and
would no longer be refundable for most. ●Tax preferences for alternative fuels, community development and other
Democratic priorities would go away.●And the expansions of the earned income tax credit and the dependent care
credit would disappear as well.

Now what Mr. Thiessen does not discuss and is very real about the actual budget cuts is what will happen to the defense budget. It will take the largest hit if indeed budget cuts have to be implemented once the United States falls off the cliff.
But what is in it for the long run for those of us that want to pursue real tax reform and entitlement reform?
Well, I can not say it better than Mr. Thiessen does right here:

Americans had a choice this November, and they voted for bigger government.
Rather shielding voters from the consequences of their decisions, let them pay
for it.

And therein lie why the Republicans need to let the United States fall off that fiscal cliff.
Because the reality is that the people that did vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama, and Democrats need to come to an understanding.
That big government actually costs real money. And that real money is the taxes that the government will collect from more Americans to pay for such things as the so-called "stimulus" that currently Red China is paying for. And of course there is Obamacare.
See, the Democrats really want people to believe that only wealthy people, whatever they define as wealthy, should have to shoulder the burden of taxes and not all taxpayer need to be part of paying taxes in the first place.
The problem is, there are just not that many wealthy people unless you lower the wealth bar pretty low. The way that Democrats have figured, about $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for a married couple and or household.
And at some point, the Democrats will realize, damn, why that is not enough and wealthy, well, lets see, maybe lets make that $150,000 or individuals and $200,000 for married couples and families. It thus becomes a game of drip, drip, drip until the bar is so lowered that well what Mr. Thiessen describes as the taxes going up happens in one fell swoop.KA-BOOM!
The problem is that if the Republicans get caught up in some moronic "Grand Bargain" to avoid the fiscal cliff, they will not have any position of strength to fight for serious tax reform let alone entitlement reform.
In other words, real pain must occur before real reform can be negotiated and achieved.
And it is why Republicans need to not try for some deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. We must drive the car right off of it and lay the blame where it belongs-with the Democrats-and then negotiate from a position of strength.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

It is a truly pressing question for a state party that did take a serious beating in the just concluded presidential campaign.Of course, our "friends" at the Left Angeles Times does run this article that of course blames all the losses on. . .wait for it. . .the conservative wing of the party.
Well, the reality is that while the Republican party in California is smaller in numerous ways, it was the conservatives that had the numbers and more or less won their races.
Moderate Republicans lost to Democrats all over the state.
Leading your humble blogger to note a true rule of politics.
When a race is between a Democrat and a moderate Republican, voters go with the real deal, a Democrat. As much as one may berate voters, what they do see is that if they have a choice, then they will go with the real deal rather than a pandering Republican.
So, in the article, it quotes one of those moderates, Rob Stutzman as saying this gem:

"For the business community, there is a recognition that the best path forward
for the state from a governance perspective is with moderate Democrats."

Oh, and Mr. Stutzman was doing consulting as a Republican for the California Chamber of Commerce and advising on candidates to back.Mr. Stutzman was also one of Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger's leading advisers.
So, one has to wonder who Mr. Stutzman advised the CCoC who to back in the just concluded election.
And in the same article, it cites these moderates of breaking with the party to support the massive tax hikes proposed by that paragon of moderation, Gov. Benedict Arnold, in 2009 that was just supposed to solve our state budget deficit.
And what happened to these people?
Two were ousted form leadership and eventually are out of office and one was almost recalled.
Again, I refer you to the rule I cited earlier.
One person in the article that actually made some sense is the former Republican leader in the state senate, Jim Brulte.
It appears that he wants to run for state GOP chair. And he is stating the obvious.

"Demographics do not have to be destiny," Brulte said. "But if Republicans don't
do a better job of reaching out to all Californians, they are going to be."

He is correct.
But the key is how to reach out to these voters. Do Cali GOPers just shed any principles and run as Demo lite? Or do they reach out to these voters with a compelling, conservative message that at the same time does not make them feel inferior?
Of course it is go for the latter.
And I would recommend that if Mr. Brulte is serious, he should read this awesome piece from Rachel Campos-Duffy in the American Spectator. As a second-generation Mexican American, she has an insight that most of us non-Hispanics do not have.
And the reality is that Republicans are not going to get the majority of Hispanics or Asians in the next election. If at all in the next several election cycles. But it is important to be totally competitive in these communities. It will be through that consistency that the numbers will really change. And the Cali GOP can start rebuilding both with outreach and principles.
One area that Mr. Brulte should take to heart if he cares to read Mrs. Campos-Duffy is the following from her article:

For too long, the party’s strategy has been to hire a few Beltway conservative Latinos six months before an election and call it “outreach.” What’s needed is permanent outreach at the grassroots levels between elections. Conservative Hispanic activists on the ground know that the GOP needs to take a few cues from successful groups like the far-left La Raza, which has made its mark by bringing public policy to the neighborhood level.

Yes, Mrs. Campos-Duffy is totally spot-on. Especially her point about carrying outreach between elections.
As an pseudo-Anglo who has lived among Hispanics all my life, I know that for sure there is a lot of work to do. Many Hispanics and now Asians will just not think about the R-word because of some pre-conceived ideas. And of course there will be those that think we can not reach out to certain voters because all they want is their snout into the government trough. Again that is not true and they just need to be sought not just because they are Hispanic and or Asian. It is because they are but another part of the American dream and could be Republicans if only they were sought after.
The really frightening aspect of the obliteration the Cali GOP took is the reaction of people like this dude, Mike Madrid, a supposed Republican consultant:

"It will be easier to
moderate the Democratic Party than to fix the California Republican Party."

Good Lord, insert laugh track here, please!
The Democrat party is so dominated by the lefties from Los Angeles county and the Bay Area that if one followed Mr. Madrid's "logic", he would be inviting the kind of lefty rage that conservatives had in cutting a deal to raises taxes under Gov. Benedict Arnold.
What needs to be done is someone who is a conservative that can follow a game plan to contest not only every part of this state, but for those votes that the Democrats take for granted. Like Hispanics and Asians. And remember it will not be done overnight. It is part of a long-term strategy.
I am beginning to think that for the start of this task, Jim Brulte would be a good choice for Cali GOP
chair.
But the bottom line is that we cannot lose out principles in the process.
And that leads back to the question of how does the California Republican party do just that?

Thursday, November 22, 2012

" In everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus."

1 Thessalonians 5:18

Today is Thanksgiving day in the United States. A day that has been set aside to give thanks for whatever we want to give thanks for.
I for one am thankful to be living in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
And I am, without question, thankful for Mrs. RVFTLC. She does put up with a lot being Mrs. RVFTLC! And then there is our son. Our dogs, Master Cashew and amazingly Scout the Wonder dog. We thought that last thanksgiving might be the last one. But at 15 1/2 years old, she is alive and kicking.
And of course for other family and friends.
But most important, for me, is to give thanks to God for all that I do have in this life.
We do seem to emphasize what we percieve as falling short. But it is what we have that we should give thanks to. We should strive for what we may not have but want. It should not consume us.
Yes, there is the wonderful food that is connected with Thanksgiving. Turkey, stuffing, ham, prime rib, mashed potatoes, candied yams, the actually God-forsaken green bean cassarole, pumpkin pie. But rememeber who we will be sharing it with. Yeah, some of the people we may only see once a year. Or even that day is the only time we will see some people.
What I mean about sharing it with is those that do not have the life that most of us have.
Before we go to our Turkey day festivities, Mrs. RVFTLC will stop off at our mission church in El Monte, California and help serve Thanksgiving to those less fortunate than we are. It is something that gives a real meaning to the day. And solidifies what it means to give thanks.
So, remember that in between the turkey and football, give thanks to God for the life that you have. Not the one that you think that you want.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Oh, if only Todd Akin of Richard Mourdock had just a wee bit of Sen. Marco Rubio, they would have never gotten in trouble when rape and abortion questions came up in their respective campaigns.Sen. Rubio conducted an interview with GQ magazine and the interviewer, Michael Hainey, asks a load of seemingly pedestrian questions. But then, out of nowhere, Mr. Hainey asks this amazing question:

How old do you think the earth is?

Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot?
Really, where did that question come out of? Was it being saved if Mr. Akin got by the rape/abortion question?
Seriously, here is the question and Sen. Rubio's very good response:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is? Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

This is brilliant!
First, don't let Obamawhore media hack trick you. It is obvious that this is a trick question. So, Sen. Rubio starts with a cool dude response:

I'm not a scientist, man.

Exactly. Sen. Rubio is not a scientist. Nor is he, as he goes on to explain, a theologian. In reality, the way he answers the question is to bring up more questions. Question that Obamawhore media hack did not ask. I think that Sen. Rubio left him flustered.
Now, if Mr. Hainey did his homework, he would know that Sen. Rubio is a Roman Catholic. Most even very devout Roman Catholics do not believe that the earth was created in seven, 24 hour day and is about 6,000 years old. The easiest way to explain what Roman Catholics believe is exactly what Sen. Rubio said.

It;'s one of the great mysteries.

That is what most Roman Catholics believe. So why does this Obamawhore media hack ask such a question?
Because without a doubt, this tool really thought that he would trip up this rising Republican star.
But little did this hack know that Sen. Rubio is ready for this kind of crap. And he answered it beyond appropriately.
Riddle me this, folks.
Would our current occupier of the White House been asked a question like, oh I don't know. Let me pull this out of my hat.
Would the Dear Leader, President Obama, ever be asked this.
Do you believe in Black liberation theology?Would that be deemed an unfair question? Well, yes my friends. Yes it would.
Because how dare anyone ask our Dear Leader, President Obama, if sitting in the pews of Trinity Church in the South side of Chicago and listening to the "Rev" Jeremiah Wright drone on about the subject for 20 frickin years, he believed in the main tenet of what he preached?
Yet somehow, Sen. Marco Rubio is supposed to answer a question the greatest minds ever have not been able to answer with absolute certitude.
No, he does not and he did but did not directly spout off something stupid.
My friends, this is how to not give the Obamawhore Media Complex their jollies.
Republicans need to read this interview to see when trapped with a gotcha question, do what Sen. Rubio did.
Turn it around and make said hack look as foolish as can be for asking such a question.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

OK, can't seem to get enough of this self-flagellation over the presidential election a week ago Tuesday.
I mean, how else are we going to learn how Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama, right?Well, maybe this is another reason.
OK, on the surface, Mr. Romney is kind of right. But I think that is what politicians do, right? Especially Democrat pols. It is in the Democrat DNA.
But it was the tone and yes, bitterness, that Mr. Romney made the comment. That was surprising and tone deaf to a huge reason for his defeat.
That no matter how much he tried, he could not help that he was a wealthy, White male running against the United States' first Black president.
And he does not have to deliver any more red meat to the Republican activists. Nor give any more fodder to the American left.Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal was correct to refute Mr. Romney and to state something that should be obvious.
That Republicans have to fight for 100% of votes in elections.
And that is what has ailed in reality both political parties, but especially the Republicans, in the last several election cycles.
So, who is ready for some wit and wisdom from The Architect, Karl Rove?Well, this piece in The Wall Street Journal was actually very good.
And while he did make a buffoon of himself on election night, he offers some good advice for future campaigns.
This one caught my eye:

Republicans should also emulate the Democratic "50-state" strategy by
strengthening the ground game everywhere, not just in swing states.

YES!
The Architect is correct.
Folks, the Republican party can not keep writing off states before campaigns begin. Sure, I don't think that Republicans can win in California or New York in the very immediate future. But it is possible that by the next presidential election, there is something in place that will make candidates actually come to those states. And that will excite Republican voters and get them out into the hustings to dig up some votes. After all, how are state parties supposed to get more than 38% of the vote in California? Or 36% in New York state? Maybe 40% in New Jersey? You get the picture.
There are a lot of nuts-and-bolts points that he made that are also good. But what about the most obvious?
That since one Ronald Wilson Reagan, the Republican party has nominated moderate after moderate and lost almost every election since 1988.It was not lost on RD Brewer over at the Ace of Spades. It was he who made the salient point.
The history is pretty bitter for the most part except for the two election wins by George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.
In 1992, not long after George H. W. Bush caved on the infamous 1988 pledge to not raise taxes, his campaign was not even on autopilot. It was in total disarray. Pat Buchanan ran in the primaries and made some serious damage. And yup, I contributed to that damage by voting for Mr. Buchanan in the 1992 Cali GOP primary. And with the unwitting help of Ross Perot, we got Bill Clinton.
But if once was not enough, and the Republicans not exactly helping themselves, Sen. Bob Dole, a good man, was nominated and went on to defeat. Again, he could not really explain why he should be president and how a Dole presidency would be different from Mr. Clinton's.
By 2000, the Bush name was transferred in part to the oldest son, George W. Bush. A successful governor in Texas, he decided to run for president. He ran as a conservative reformer. he wanted to bring that to Washington. And after a brutal election campaign and the Electoral College debacle, Mr. Bush did eventually win the election. And in 2004 much the way one Barack Hussein Obama ran in 2012, Mr. Bush did win reelection with similar if not eerie numbers as the current occupant of the White House.
But by 2008 and no anointed successor, the Republicans had an all-out war and the Vietnam vet and Arizona Solon, John "F--- You" McCain won the nomination and became the loser against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And we all know the story of the just concluded campaign.
Mr. Brewer notes that not one of these candidates was as articulate or governed as conservatively as did Mr. Reagan.
And as Mr. Brewer notes, it is the elephant in the room.
But I think a good start is being made by Gov. Jindal of Louisiana.
After all, he is the governor of a Southern state that has long been, well I don't quite know how to say it nicely, a backwater and Democrat corruption factory.
And Gov. Jindal has been a strong reformer. And he won reelection by a staggering 66% of the vote in 2011.
And he does not run for a third term, he would be able to make that run for president.
He is saying the right things and doing the right things.
Thus he should be looked at very seriously and now.
My ending thoughts.
Mitt Romney can not be bitter about this loss. He can not say that the Democrats just bought off the very voters that they needed in a cold manner.
Republicans need to rethink a lot of the nuts-and-bolts about campaigns.
We must nominate a candidate that can articulate conservative ideas and not alienate anyone. The way that Ronald Reagan did.
And, Bobby Jindal is on my shortlist for 2016.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Yeah, I know that this is a hilarious question since the last several election cycles seem to say a big fat N O!
It is very important to go back to how the California Republican party is now a third-party in this once Golden State.
The stats are just a part of the story, but a very important one.
Lets go back to 2000 because that is the beginning of the 21st century and the Democrats began the long march to where they are about to be today.
In 2000, as usual, there were more registered Democrats than Republicans in California.
Here is the breakdown and the percentages are rounded off.

2000Democrat
7,134,601 (45%)

Republican
5,485,492 (35%)

Decline To State (Independent)
2,256,316 (14%)

Fast forward to this past election

2012Democrat
7,966,422 (44%)

Republican
5,356,608 (29%)

Decline to state (Independent)
3,820,545 (21%)

While Democrats have lost a whole percentage of registered voters over this time, they have gained almost 832,000 new voters.
The Republicans?
Not only have they lost six percent of registered voters but have lost nearly 129,000 registered voters.
And the big winners? Those choosing to register with neither political party as the Decline to State has jumped seven points and over 1,154,000 registered voters.
OK, now you get the state of the parties currently in terms of registration.
Another stat worth looking at is the presidential results since 2000.
Yes, the Republican candidates have lost every time.
But it did not start off as bad as it has become today.
Here are the presidential election results since 2000 and without third parties.

2000Bush (R) 4,567,429 (42%)Gore (D) 5,861,203 (54%)

2004Bush (R) 5,509,826 (44%)Kerry (D) 6.745,485 (54%)

2008Obama (D) 8,274,473 (61%)McCain (R) 5,011,781 (37%)

2012Obama (D) 6,414,573 (59%)Romney (R)4,413,120 (38%)

Now look at several things.
One, Democrat numbers increase almost every election. Except this year. And after the Republican high water mark of 44% in 2004, the numbers and percentages precipitously drop like an anvil. Granted the numbers for the just concluded presidential election are not final, but the bottom line is this.
The new high water mark for California Republicans seem to be about 38% of votes.
And even in the GOP strongholds the Dems made some striking gains.
Thus, California is about to endure total Democrat rule.
The Democrats control all the elected constitutional offices and are about to have a super-majority in both the Assembly (lower house) and the senate. Out of 120 legislative districts total in the assembly, it appears that the Republicans will have a grand total of 40. Forty out of 120 available seats.
So the overall numbers suck, the question or multiple variations are why?
Even though there was an alleged Republican as governor from 2005 to 2010, that governor, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger, did absolutely nothing to improve the Republican party standing in any way.
By the time Benedict Arnold ran for a full term in 2006, he was politically lobotomized and was nothing but Democrat lite.
The GOP in California has done absolutely nothing to keep up with the very substantial change that has taken place in this state.
It is now much more Asian and Hispanic. In fact, there is no race group over 50% in the state. Both the previously mentioned groups are rising fast.
The Whites?
Well, if they can they are getting out. Regrettably, what we are seeing statewide is White Flight. But it is not all race related. It is a combination of things that have driven mostly Whites from leaving California. The high cost of living. The difficulty of doing business here. The continuous tax-and-spend mentality from the city level to the state level.
But now, many people of color who have gained economically are beginning to follow Whites outta here.
But the Cali GOP has never been able to shake the damage from the vote in 1994 for Proposition 187.
It did pass and had it been implemented would have essentially cut all assistance to illegal aliens.
Then Republican governor Pete Wilson, bless his heart, a moderate Republican and struggling to win reelection decided to back the measure and it passed by an amazing 60%-40%.
Now one has to realize that a sizable number of Hispanics did vote for the measure. In fact according to the link, about 23% of Hispanics voted for the measure. There were not enough Whites to get to 60%,
But, alas, Proposition 187 never was implemented. And since then, the California Democrat party has never let the California Republican party off the hook on that one.
And it seems that the party has decided that it is not worth the effort to have real, genuine outreach to Hispanics since that time.
And that is a huge problem in this state.
The reality is that the Cali GOP has no message for its base let alone for non-Republicans to consider.
It is a rudderless ship that is about to hit a coral reef.
But, there are ways to right this wrong if the party really wants to get back into the game here in California.
One, it must pursue what I would call a middle-class agenda.
It must explain why it is bad to have higher taxes all the way around. It must stand for the homeowners who in fact and indeed have the highest burden in term of paying state and local taxes.
It must stand for making public education second to none. It must take the time and effort to explain that public charter schools are the future of education. It must be forward looking. It must be inclusive in this way. It must meld education with being an American.
It must explain that excessive regulation is a cause and affect as to why joblessness remains in double-digits. That if there is reasonable deregulation, it will bring business to the state and not less.
It must remain and explain why it is tough-on-crime. And that crime knows no race and or economic background. It must pursue that it will not only enforce the death penalty but find ways to speed up the process so that executions can go at a much faster pace. And the fact that voters voted to keep the death penalty, it is a totally winning issue for the Cali GOP.
Now, this will upset most conservatives who consider themselves social conservatives, but the party will have to downplay that aspect of the coalition.
Not shun so cons at all. But the reality is that if same-sex marriage gets on the ballot next time, it will pass, not be rejected. We can explain why it is a bad thing, but should not have candidates run on that as an issue. Same with abortion. What we have to do is educate as why it should not be the way that it is now. And we must not let illegal immigration define us or be defined by the Dems and left. We must point out that it is a federal issue and that the federal government must pursue the policies to secure our borders. By that, the Cali GOP can not support so-called "Sanctuary" cities and point out that they are violating federal law. Again, pick the battles that can be won, not keep fighting losing efforts.
All of this requires some very hard, serious work on the part of the Cali GOP.
It means that it has to get volunteers to do some things that have been lacking.
It means getting involved in the ethnic events around the state.
Chinese New Year is coming up. Get some Republican registration booths at all the celebrations. Have material in Chinese, Cantonese and Mandarin, the primary dialects. And they must be manned by Asians, not old White people. No offense to those since I am a middle-aged White guy.
Cinco de Mayo. Same as above. Have material in Spanish. Have Hispanics manning the booths.
Martin Luther King Day in January. Again, same as above. And of course have Black people involved.
And we have to keep at it because we will not have a mass sea change of minds by the 2014 state election.
The Democrats did not get to where they are now over night and neither will the Republicans.
It has to be a long-term strategy and a genuine effort that minority groups have never seen before in this state.
Again, many of the issues are on the Republicans side. But we have to be willing to get into the game. We can't keep whining and hand-wringing.
It is time to get to work.
We need to have a strong Republican party in California, the largest state in the nation. We need to have that strong party to get back to having actual presidential races in which the candidates come here instead of Florida. Or Michigan. Or Pennsylvania.
If not, we will just go the way of the Northeast state Republican parties. Into irrelevance.

Thursday, November 08, 2012

This could end up being a vulgar rant. I do not want it to be. But I warn you ahead of time.
As the fog of the results of this past Tuesday's presidential election lifts, a rather deeply disturbing aspect of the Romney campaign is not coming out.
We were told over and over again that the Republicans were going to win the ground game in all the swing states. That we had advantages that the Democrats did not. Yada, yada, yada.
One of those "advantages" was dubbed ORCA.
It was supposed to change the face of the election and help Mitt Romney become the 45th president of the United States.
But, in the hands of Republican "strategists", of course they turned this into a disaster.
In this account by Jack Ekdahl, there were problems from the start. It was promoted to the volunteers in "rah-rah" sort of way. Re: Amway. Any questions that were asked about drawbacks, not answered. And this is very important. This was not a coordinated effort with the actual Republican party but from Team Romney.
A huge mistake there.
Read Mr. Ekdahl's account of how badly things were done to get an idea of two election cycles being ran by, to be blunt, morons.
There was the haphazard Sen. John "F--- You" McCain campaign, that pretty much imploded before a single vote was cast on election day in 2008. And if this is true, and it pains me to write this, a campaign that had a significant tool to reach voters oversold and thus blew the age-old theory of direct, personal contact. One-on-one with voters.
Oh, and Team Obama? They did that.
And the reality is that the Democrats have the built in organization to do that with their alliances.
Folks, we Republicans can not run campaigns and win elections if we do not seriously stand as an alternative to the other side. And we must not throw out the baby with the bath water.
I blame a lot of this on someone thinking that they are the next Karl Rove.
Yes, he was the architect of George W. Bush's wins in 2000, and 2004.
But that was then.
The Dems of course studied all that he did in 2004 to win this election. And basically, it was to get the minimal amount of electoral votes to the majority of 270 or plus.
And of course the Dems did better once they got their hands on it.
Say what you want about it being a nasty campaign. It was. But while the public face of that campaign was there for the world to see, they were busy doing a little modern stuff and classic retail one-on-one contacts. And, they looked for new voters. They were smart enough to realize that there was a let down in the historic 2008 race.
Bottom line.
Team Obama played smart and used everything at its disposal.
Team Romney played, well lets just say that they played and lost.
I credit Team Obama for doing what should always be done by both parties. Never ceding any place.
Sure, this time they did, but wait because they are going to try to open the field in 2016 because they will have to.
Once again, because of downright ineptitude, the Republicans foolishly already gave up ground before the primary season.
We can not hope to win elections if we keep letting California, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin stay Blue.
At least Republicans are competitive in Michagan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. But at the presidential level, it is like Lucy Van Pelt pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.
Here is some advice for the next big thing in the GOP.
One, chuck these worthless consultants. They have no clue. Elections need to be fought everywhere and anywhere. Starting from a negative, well it means we narrow on the margins rather than the nation as a whole.
Two, candidates must be at ease talking about basic conservative ideas. They must be able to move the debate. Being defensive or brushing it aside gets you Mitt Romney. And the list is rather long.
You know, California was pretty Democratic when a guy named Reagan ran for governor in 1966. Most Republicans thought that he did not have a chance to even win the nomination. But he did and because he was clear and totally comfortable talking about conservatism, showing a contrast to then Gov. Edmund "Pat" Brown, the current governor's dad, he won.
It is not all about the bells and whistles, but practicing the time-honored tradition of constant retail politics.
Dems get it and GOPers do not.

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

Hmm, I probably should stop with the headline, but it is true.
Losing this election to the Worthless Leader, President Obama, really does suck.
I mean really, what did it come down to for many people?
That Hispanics feel so alienated from the Republican party that they will go with the guy that really in a bad sense wants to keep them down?
That people really think a photo-op and just showing up after a hurricane hits New Jersey and New York is awesome?
That people believed that even after George W. Bush being out of office for four years the bad economy is still his fault?
That the Republicans did not make a hard enough case not just about replacing the Worthless, ah the heck with it, President Obama but what they had to offer and why it would be better?
Coalition politics really do work?
There are a lot more questions to ask but generally, yes to all of the above.
While I do believe that illegal immigration should not be rewarded, the reality is that we Republicans, and I include myself, have not emphasized enough that a reality is that some people who did come into the United States illegally will have to be given an oppertuinity to stay. But any deal has to have the reality that the reason there is mass illegal immigration in the first place, especially from Mexico and yes, Red China, is because of the condidtions in the home country. And that the United States must have stronger border security. Period. We can not be snookered like last time. It must be real and implemented.
We have to do a lot better explaining that to all people, but especially Hispanics and Chinese/Asian Americans. And until we do, well it is going to be hard to win elecions anywhere.
Hispanics want to be part of the United States. They really do. And so many are very much proud to be Americans. Even the many that came here illegally. I do think that a lot of rethinking that is going to be needed. I do not pretend to know the answer. It is not blanket anmesty, thats for sure.
A photo-op or two should not be a determining factor in voting for anyone.
But it was for President Obama.
It just looked awesome to many people that he showed up, had that concerned look on his face, hugged a few people and standing next to Gov. Chris The Cow Christie, a supposed Republican, well for many people that was enough a reason to vote for President Obama.
I don't get it really. I mean, it is an unwritten part of the job description to show up to such things and assure the populace that all will be done to help. I suppose it all gets back to the infamous Hurricane Katrina and the rather sucessful narrative of an uncaring then President George W. Bush. Nevermind that the then mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, and then Gov. Kathleen Blanco were both telling Mr. Bush that they did not need any assistance. Until it was too late.
However, it does run into a fact. That people want a leader that they feel they can relate to. And until the dreaded Katrina, a lot of people thought that Mr. Bush did relate to them. Wanna know why there is not a President Kerry? Because Sen. John F. Kerry could not connect to people.
And here is a bipartisan memo.
No more presidential nominees from Massachusetts.
Michael Dukakis, John Kerry for the Dems and now Mitt Romney for the Republicans. All three are now losers and shows that Massachusetts governance is still too much for most Americans. And while Mitt Romney was more technocrat than anything, he was a Republican and reasonably conservative. But, that almost cost him the GOP nomination and in the end, the White House.
The economy still being W's fault?
It is the biggest stretch, but Team Obama has dipped into that well sucessfully time and time again. And it keeps working.
But I think it is more of an overall attempt to create hatred of the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll rich.
The Bushes, the Romneys. Eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll rich people. Oh sure there are more, but they stick out.
And when it is down to the gutteral, street-level fight of "us vs. them", sorry folks, the Dems have that corner down. It is in a sense the whole reason for their being. Never mind that the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll rich that they skew and roast over the coals are in fact more in line with them than Republicans.
And a news flash.
Big business ain't Republican and certainely not conservative. It goes with whoever will do their bidding.
What we need to do is teach what conservativsm and conservative principles are about. Most people do not have a clue. If you look at it through the prism of partisan politics, then yes it can be hard to realize that many people are, indeed, much more conservative that they even realize.
Don't get me wrong. Elections are important. But it can only do so much. The culture in many bad ways is changing. In other ways it has improved. It is not all one or the other. \
But that leads to coalition politics.
Sorry, but that does work. And it has for both sides and especially in the last 12 years.
In the end, Team Obama got it together and they went to work. Team Romney? They were fighting it out over a primary season in which, quite sucessfully, Team Obama defined him and he did nothing to refute it.
You may not like their coalition. I don't. But we have to study that and learn from it. One other thing is that, once again, the GOP just does not get how to attract the youth. The youth are hyper-tech savvy. Team Obama knows it and has been able to use it and keep them for now in their camp.
For now? What do I mean?Because my friends one thing to learn in the last 20 years is that elections are a cyclical thing. And by the end of the eight years of Obama, the nation will be ready to try something new. Some of that coalition that Team O built will not be able to be kept on the Democrat plantation. Blacks may not feel as anxious to vote as they have in the last two elections. In fact, while their coalition was kept together, a lot of people did not seem to be engaged as voting was down all accross the board.
Many of the groups in the current Dem coalition will tire. And with the right candidate, it is possible that in 2016, the Republicans can take back the White House.
A lot of people are just going to scream that the Republicans are going to just have to chuck all that makes them Republicans and become Dem lite.
I see that from my lib Facebook friends.
But that is not as much the issue as perception.
When we nominate candidates that can not articulate their positions in a clear and coherent manner, as I always say, people will vote for the devil they know, the Dems, rather than what they are not sure about, the GOP.
John McCain and Mitt Romney are the latest to not get it.
It is not just about messaging but what the hell do they believe. Why did they run for president in the first place.
There is more to say on all of this.
But for now, the honesty of today is simple.
Losing this election sucks.

Sunday, November 04, 2012

What do I mean by what election day look like?
Simply put, will weather play a part in who votes where? What voters will be more motivated to vote on election day? Obama voters or Romney voters? Will the so-called battleground states all fall one way or will there be some surprises?
Well, as far as the weather, according to the Weather Channel, Election Day should be fine for people to get out and vote. Especially in the so-called battleground states.
As far as the voters motivated to actually show up to vote, that is easy.
The Romney/Ryan voters are beyond fired-up to get out and vote. There is no question to that. Over 30,000 show up at a Friday night rally near Cincinnati, Ohio for the Romney/Ryan ticket. Nearly 30,000 in Bucks county, Pennsylvania today for the GOP ticket. What about the crowds for the incumbent Obama/Biden ticket?
By and large they can not break 5,000 any where that they show up. It appears that those that do show up are the hardcore base and the hangers-on.
Now maybe crowds do not matter all that much to some. But it is a lot of the way that volunteers will get out the vote on election day. It creates an abiding enthusiasm that can not be replicated by the other team. It shows that people are wanting to vote for someone than against they other.
If you do not believe that, as President John S. McCain.
In the waning days of the 2008 campaign, much as we tried to will Sen. "F--- You" McCain to victory, it was a lot like the Obamiacs are doing now. Not offering a reason to vote for them, but why voting for the other guy would be a disaster.
So, trust me, the motivation is totally on Romney/Ryan.
And the so-called battleground states will fall all one way or another or split?
No.
I honestly believe that it will all go one way and that dove-tails into the reality of the motivated voters.
All the battleground states will, by varying margins, fall into the Romney/Ryan camp.
Polls are very important indicators but always keep this in mind. They are but a snapshot in time. And that is the time that any poll is taken.
It must be noted that in the 2004 campaign, all the way to Election Day, Democrat presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), was leading in every single Ohio poll. Then President Bush never ever had a lead. Ever. And who won Ohio? President Bush by over 200.000 votes.
It is why those who want to vote for Romney/Ryan have between now and election day to not be discouraged and use all of this to work doubly hard to get out the vote. Unlike 2008, the Romney/Ryan ticket is really within the margins of error in every so-called battleground state.
This election could be an electoral college blowout, a split-decision a la 2000 or way too close everywhere.
I think it will be more like the first scenario and I will explain why in the next post.

Friday, November 02, 2012

Well, now that there is less than five days until election day in California we get our suspense whether or not our ballot propositions we are for or against get voted the way we want it to be.
Sure, the Worthless Leader, President Obama, should take California, but by a substantially reduced majority. Sen. Dianne Feinstein will probably get about 65% to 70% of the vote against her little-known Republican opponent, Elizabeth Emken. And there will be Democrat majorities in the congressional delegation and the state legislature.
So, it comes down to the ballot props that get us going. And there are 10 measures being put up on the General Election ballot come this Tuesday.
The measures are actually mostly left-leaning but there is at least one that could change the game in Sacramento and even the playing field against the vise-grip of the public employee unions.
So, here they are in order, with a recommendation from your humble blogger. The synopsis are direct from the California Secretary of State website.

Proposition 30

Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years, to fund schools. Guarantees public safety realignment funding. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues through 2018–19, averaging about $6 billion annually over the next few years. Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur.

It is a tax hike, pure and simple. But note that while the proponents such as Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown are touting this as a way to save public education from any budget cuts, the taxes that will be raised do not have to go to school funding. Key line is this, "Revenues available for funding state budget.". So, this is very broad language with no guarantee that school funding will or will not be cut. And of course there is always the canard that these taxes are "temporary"-until the next time.

RVFTLC RecommendationNO

Proposition 31

Establishes two-year state budget. Sets rules for offsetting new expenditures, and Governor budget cuts in fiscal emergencies. Local governments can alter application of laws governing state-funded programs. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state sales tax revenues of $200 million annually, with corresponding increases of funding to local governments. Other, potentially more significant changes in state and local budgets, depending on future decisions by public officials.

This sounds good in the way that it is written, per se. But I think that in the end it will create more budget and fiscal confusion. There is also the potential that this will weaken the hand of localities in dealing with their own budgetary priorities.

RVFTLC Recommendation NONO

Proposition 32

Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs to state and local government, potentially exceeding $1 million annually, to implement and enforce the measure’s requirements.

OK, one knows that this is something that if it upsets the public employee unions, make sure that the California Teachers Association is out in front spending millions of dollars, bankrolled from their partial confiscation of their members money to defeat this measure. Even the proponents admit it is not perfect but a start to end the stranglehold of big unions and big business on the pols in Sacramento.

RVFTLC RecommendationYES

Proposition 33

Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage. Fiscal Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues

I admit, even after reading and rereading this, I am not sure how I will vote on it. I need to read more on it. So on this one, I chicken out.

RVFTLC RecommendationNone

Proposition 34

Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state and county criminal justice savings of about $130 million annually within a few years, which could vary by tens of millions of dollars. One-time state costs of $100 million for local law enforcement grants.

It is the most possible closest opponents of the death penalty may come to abolishing it in California. And the argument that they are using is the cost of the whole appeals process when so few have been executed in California since the state voters approved resintituting the death penalty. What the proponents do not tell is how much it will cost to house these prisoners for life with supposedly no chance for parole. In the end, the cost argument could be a wash. And the fiscal argument in these tough economic time could work. But I do not think that is any reason to abolish the death penalty. In fact, what should be done is to put a cap on the appeal process and begin any way to speed up the execution process in San Quintin.

RVFTLC RecommendationNO

Proposition 35

Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.

This is very specific as to what increasing the penalties for this kind of sex crime is. I think that the opponents are wrong about this being too broad.

RVFTLC RecommendationYES

Proposition 36

Revises law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. May authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state correctional savings of around $70 million annually, with even greater savings (up to $90 million) over the next couple of decades. These savings could vary significantly depending on future state actions

This is an attempt to weaken the three-strikes law here in California. The proponents cite that the three-strikes law was not intended to be so punitive as to send non-felons or serious or violent. The reason that the law is successful is that these criminals are in jail. It is much like trying to end the death penalty here. Using fiscal arguments when the reality is to end anything that is actually tough on crime.

RVFTLC RecommendationNO

Proposition 37

Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.

This would lead to requiring another layer of labeling on our food. Again, this is an issue where I am not sure that genetically manufactured food is all bad or all good. I think that this is some feel-good legislation that is more about lifestyle choices than anything else. Not needed at this time without further research into the pros and cons of genetically modified food.

RVFTLC RecommendationNO

Proposition 38

Increases taxes on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K–12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues for 12 years—roughly $10 billion annually in initial years, tending to grow over time. Funds used for schools, child care, and preschool, as well as providing savings on state debt payments.

At least this is a tax that is to be directed for education funding. But it is worse than Prop 30. It admits in it television ads that those making over $1,000,000 a year will pay an average tax of $76,000. Supposedly the average for the rest of us is is a $54 tax hike. Again, it is the multiple kind of taxes that Californians pay that makes this but another boondoggle. And, was not the California lottery the panacea for the cry of school funding in the 80s? This is a no-brainer.

RVFTLC RecomandationNO

Proposition 39

Requires multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in California. Dedicates revenues for five years to clean/efficient energy projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of $1 billion annually, with half of the revenues over the next five years spent on energy efficiency projects. Of the remaining revenues, a significant portion likely would be spent on schools.

Surprise! Another tax hike! And this is also to supposedly help school funding. Why, what will our schools do if they are to be so flush with all this money from all these taxes? This is another attempt to tax businesses that do business in other states and nations and on their sales in California. Once again, the left believes that government just does not have enough money and like the political crack-whores they are, look for it anywhere they can.

RVFTLC RecommendationNO

Proposition 40

A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If rejected, districts will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court. Fiscal Impact: Approving the referendum would have no fiscal impact on the state and local governments. Rejecting the referendum would result in a one-time cost of about $1 million to the state and counties.

This is one that should be a yes. Keep what has been decided about the California state senate district boundaries. The California GOP has a lot of work cut out for it and does not need to be in any more fighting over district lines based on the 2010 census.

RVFTLC RecommendationYESThis year the majority of measures on on the left and about taxes and criminal justice by and large. It is possible that the left could make a clean sweep and enact far-reaching insanity that will have to be dealt with, as usual, down the road and by someone else. Hopefully that does not happen.
One thing is to take this weekend to look at the link to the Cali SOS site and study the props for yourselves.
It is always important to be an informed electorate.

Blog Monitor

Networked Blogs

Ibegin

California Politics

Facebook

About Me

I am interested in all current events from the conservative perspective. Unlike some that you will read, I prefer to enlighten, not enrage. I hope to educate as well as to make you think. I think that those of us that are conservative in our politics as well as in our everyday lives are the real rebels and trying to effect positive change. And now I am part of the Loyal Opposition to the Age o' Obama. And, once again it will be us-the everyday Americans-that will wake up the nation to the excesses that will be the Obama administration.